A US political discussion....

[UnderseaLcpl]

Why so serious?

I can understand your appreciation for a discussion based upon quantified evidence and stuctured, logical points. I used to be a CX debater. And, I place great value upon pragmatism. In fact, if you'd ever care to discuss some of the issues oft-contested on the GT Forum with a little research and evidence thrown in for good measure, feel free to PM me. I always love discussions like that, and I love being proven wrong, as well.

I've read your posts in this thread and I do agree with you for the most part. But CH started the thread to answer questions and recieve feedback about his Presidential platforms. It's just an exchange of ideas. People go back and forth over controversial issues every day here and often claim to have the best solutions or the right answers. Hell, I've done it. But it's just the GT forum. It's like discussing politics with your friends over a coffee, except with more anonymity, and probably beer. But there's no reason we can't be civil.

edit- you ruined the congruity of my response with your post 64 now :p

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Why so serious?

I can understand your appreciation for a discussion based upon quantified evidence and stuctured, logical points. I used to be a CX debater. And, I place great value upon pragmatism. In fact, if you'd ever care to discuss some of the issues oft-contested on the GT Forum with a little research and evidence thrown in for good measure, feel free to PM me. I always love discussions like that, and I love being proven wrong, as well.

I've read your posts in this thread and I do agree with you for the most part. But CH started the thread to answer questions and recieve feedback about his Presidential platforms. It's just an exchange of ideas. People go back and forth over controversial issues every day here and often claim to have the best solutions or the right answers. Hell, I've done it. But it's just the GT forum. It's like discussing politics with your friends over a coffee, except with more anonymity, and probably beer. But there's no reason we can't be civil.

edit- you ruined the congruity of my response with your post 64 now :p

I guess I'm a serious guy...

[CaptainHaplo]

Well give it to UnderSea - at least he had an alternative. Which BTW Undersea - one thing your policy does not seem to consider - is the fact that there are nuclear states in the middle east - Israel being one of them, so leaving her to fend for herself would do nothing more than insure that nuclear weapons were used. Not to mention you have Pakistan and India bothbeing nuclear powers, with Iran well on its way.

But I guess turning our back and a blind eye to the middle east so they can "fight amongst themselves" wouldn't cause a problem. Heck - at the least, all the nukes going off should at least stir up enough dust into the upper atmosphere to counteract whatever questionable global warming is going on.

Ok - granted I am taking a lighthearted jab at you here - but leaving nuclear states in a single region to blow each other up - especially when one has made it clear their domination plan is global and not merely regional, is way more dangerous long term to our security than what I have proposed.

Now - the one thing that I can't quite figure out here is how come no one seems to want to think about history and the definition of war. Undersea says "you do this and its jihad till one side or the other is destroyed". Well - last time I checked - war meant someone gets their ass kicked till they either give up or die. Right now they are willing to fight that fight to the death - as death is not something they seem to fear. Apparently the biggest problem with folks like Aramike is they want to fight back - but only in ill-defined, half measures.

Look - this is war. Sure it would be nice if you could identify the good people from the bad. But tell me - did Spaatz, Eaker, Doolittle, Mitchell, or Harris lose sleep when they ordered bombing raids on cities? They knew that many innocents would be killed - and not just GERMAN non-combatants. Much of the forced labor forces and their families were also killed. They also knew that many of the Germans killed were not hard line Nazi's or even combatants. *For the record - most average germans were alot like my own grandfather - when asked if he was a Nazi - with a gun at his head - he said yes.* But there wasn't a way to tell the good guys from the bad.

There isn't today in the trenches either. You can't look at a man and know by his clothes that he is a combatant. You can't see that 5 minutes before he was prepping an IED to kill you and your friends with. The difference is today we have weapons designed to take out that identified threat - but our enemy doesn't stand out. There is no big factory to blow up - no armored column to strike.

We bombed cities in WW2 to break the will of the enemy to fight. Under the views you all have expressed - such a tactic is the most dangerous to pursue. Let me explain clearly why its not. Unlike a country - your not facing a national presence. Your facing a people that can blend in. They are not afraid of death on their own terms. They are however afraid the people they hide behind will turn and point them out.

Bomb Najaf, Medina, Mecca or Karbala - and yes - muslims everywhere would unite. Ok - fine - what are they going to do? This policy is way deeper than you guys are seeing. First off - these people may be nuts - but they are no fools. They know they cannot stop us if we decided to wipe every holy place off the face of the earth. So if they want to go toe to toe - they stand to lose all they hold sacred. This does 2 things. It makes it impossible for the extremists to continue to carry out their attacks with anonymity because the "moderate" muslims are going to lose the will to fight when they stand to lose what they see as irreplacable. Would it take more than one city? Maybe. I don't know. But I can bet you it wouldn't take more than three. The "moderates" would finally stand up and rid themselves of the extremists in an effort to preserve their religious heritage.

Secondly - it would shatter the "extremists" power foundation. After all - they preach "Allah Ackbar" or "God is Great" - and promise 7 virgins to every martyr with how much credibility after the fools they want to use just saw one of their "holy cities" reduced to rubble. After all - kinda hard to believe that Allah can conjure up 7 virgins in the afterlife for ya if he can't even protect his own holy sites from the "infidels" and their explosives.

You take away the credibility of the extremists, you force the so called "moderates" to do whatever it takes to gain peace, which will be selling out the extremists and policing their own (for once) - and guess what - the world would be a darn site more secure.

My one regret here is - it seems that everyone that so far has responded doesn't want to prosecute a war on terror - they want a half war, a police action - whatever you want to term it - they want half measures - not a way to force the enemy to stop. Sure its cruel and heartless, sure its not nice and quick and easy - but if this could be solved that way - a few cruise missiles would have done it along time ago. If you cannot understand that they intend this as a war - they don't plan on stopping until OUR way of life is gone - then you don't understand the war on terror at all. UnderSea already said it - its until one side or the other is destroyed - or submits to the will of the other. They have the will to fight it like that. What this country needs is a leader who has the fortitude to fight a war the same way. Until then - we are like the confederacy - trying to defend everywhere without any hope of victory - merely trying to survive and stave off the inevitable defeat for another day. We either take the gloves off and fight, or we fight with our hands tied. One way we can win - the other - we are doomed to fall.

You take your pick.

As for me being a "homegrown terrorist" as a flip side to their coin - I guess the leaders of this country that made all those hard choices, from president to the leaders of the fighting men - all were nothing more than homegrown terrorists too. After all - they ordered actions that killed untold numbers in the pursuit of security for their country. Dropping the Bombs on Japan - the carpet bombings of both Germany and Japan, the sinking of merchants ships with innocent merchant mariners on them, nothing but despicable acts of terror by thugs in uniform or elected office in this country huh?

Previous generations were willing to stand up against evil and defeat it. It seems this one is more than willing to fall to it instead. A damned shame.

[August]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Dropping the Bombs on Japan - the carpet bombings of both Germany and Japan, the sinking of merchants ships with innocent merchant mariners on them, nothing but despicable acts of terror by thugs in uniform or elected office in this country huh?

Even the worst examples of all of that, including the atomic bombs, were launched against military targets. What you are advocating is the mass murder of innocent people just to teach a lesson to another group of people who:

A. May not give two craps about the ones you just incinerated.
B. See your action as a wonderful jihad recruiting tool and secretly hope you will carry out your threat.
C. Decide to push you until you give them that wonderful jihad recruiting tool.

The fact that you don't see this makes you totally unfit to lead our nation.

Previous generations were willing to stand up against evil and defeat it. It seems this one is more than willing to fall to it instead. A damned shame.

What you advocate is not standing up to evil, it is surrendering to it. It is becoming the evil that we fight. The American people won't stand for that.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

one thing your policy does not seem to consider - is the fact that there are nuclear states in the middle east - Israel being one of them, so leaving her to fend for herself would do nothing more than insure that nuclear weapons were used. Not to mention you have Pakistan and India bothbeing nuclear powers, with Iran well on its way.

Au contraire, my policy does consider that possibility, though I didn't come right out and say it, which is what a wise realpolitik policy is all about. Cover your bases.

A full reply is forthcoming, and will be edited into this space, but I have to go to work for now.

[Aramike]

Apparently the biggest problem with folks like Aramike is they want to fight back - but only in ill-defined, half measures.

Huh? What? Did I miss something? Where on Earth did you get the idea that I want to fight terrorism with "ill-defined, half measures"?

Unless anything short of making Mecca a hole in the ground is considered an "ill-defined, half measure"...

August is exactly right with his really simple 3 point reason your plan is ill-conceived. Even though the response you advocate is extreme, doesn't mean it will actually work. In fact, it would fail miserably. Plus, it's cost internationally would be immense but, even more importantly, it would cost our nation the moral high ground from which to wage a war on terror in the first place.

Previous generations were willing to stand up against evil and defeat it. It seems this one is more than willing to fall to it instead. A damned shame.

Please tell me your ego isn't so immense that you honestly believe that any response that is NOT your plan would be "falling to evil"...

[CaptainHaplo]

No Aramike - a person can take a strong stand against terrorism and have a totally different idea than my own. I don't have a lock on all the good ideas. I understand kind of where UnderSea is coming from - I just disagree with him on the long term repercussions - while he is looking at it from the perspective (I think - and I could be wrong) - that if we leave em totally be they will just spend their time killing each other - I think that ultimately we would end up facing a united extremist front were we to follow his plan.

As for where I think you want half measures - allow me to point out that you have spent much of your posts talking about how my policy would make us lose international standing. Yet your own post in this thread - post 45 to be exact - you state "I personally couldn't care less about international opinion as long as we have the moral high ground." as well as "To do so would make us no better than our enemies ... in fact, maybe even worse.".

Well - in war your going to do things that others would normally consider as morally reprehensible. The prosecution of a war is not done in half measures. Either your willing to get your hands dirty, or your not going to clean up the mess. To feign indignance over what the "world attitude" would be - then say you really dont care as long as "our side" maintains the "high moral ground.", shows that deep down you just want the problem to be gone in a nice and tidy way. Sorry - but our enemy isn't so easily disposed of. If this were a conventional war - it would be a different question. Its not. You can't take out the bad guys without risking some innocents.

Regarding world opinion and the "moral high ground" - since when has the world as a collective group been on morally firm footing? I didn't see world outrage over moral issues such as human rights abuse in the middle east (Still dont unless you mean the "abuse" of us being there and freeing people from a sadist). You have yet to define the "moral high ground" other than its not taking the war to the enemy and only doing the things the world apparently agrees with. If thats your weather vane, then you don't want to see this war through. You want to sit idly by, watching things like the Taliban blow up ancient Buddhist monuments with no outcry, on the hope that if you sit quietly they wont come knocking on your door next. Oh but thats right - the entire world didn't condemn it. Musta been morally high ground then.

When your were invited to provide ideas/input - your reply was - and I am paraphrasing - "Your ideas suck and what I do in life does provides real input" - see post 43. Well - if your input has been so blasted good - why the heck is this a problem today? If your input and ideas were actually ones that would be successful and were "real input" - then we wouldn't be having this discussion because the problem would have already been solved.

Instead of discussing your own views (and kudos to Undersea for his courage to discuss his) you would rather jabber world opinion, then flip to you don't really care for what the world thinks anyway. You want stand on "moral ground" when fighting a war means that normal moral codes must be weighed against each other - the moral code of "turn the other cheek" vs the moral code of "Fight to protect your loved ones". Because for some reason you continue to refuse to look at history - and if you turn the other cheek - they will use the opportunity to slice your throat.

As for it being disgusting to you to bomb a city because it has civilians in it - and claiming that there is some vast difference between WW2 carpet bombing and taking out a "holy islamic city" - well - the fact is that these cities are often filled with people making a religious pilgrimage - and just so you feel better about it - I think its safe to say that at least a few of em that would perish would be of the extremist variety. There ya go - makes it a military target. Feel better now?

Of course not - because in spite of your indignation and sputterings about "stalinist" policies, the fact is your responses to date pretty much show that unless its a guy in a turban with a gun shooting at you - you don't want him taken out. Well, terror will always find more poor saps to shoot at you - so you wont ever win the war with that. I guess the biggest difference Aramike - your "willing to OVERTLY fight" the war against terror - I am willing to WIN it.

Your right - probably a bad thing for a leader to be willing to do isnt it? If your ultra right wing - an end to the war means an end to the government-military complex being the end all be all - if your a bleeding heart liberal - beating up the terrorists might hurt their self esteem.

I guess for the rest of us - and yes I speak for more than myself - its called the silent majority - we are simply sick of this and are ready to put an end to it - with overwhelming force if necessary.

However, I would hope that the diplomatic and economic pressures of the regional and world governments would affect change in a more peaceful way. But if not.....

[CaptainHaplo]

August - let me respond this way.

A. May not give two craps about the ones you just incinerated.

I don't expect them to give two craps about the people - its not the people I am out to cause damage and destruction to. Its the symbol and strength of what gives the terrorists purpose - their faith.

B. See your action as a wonderful jihad recruiting tool and secretly hope you will carry out your threat.

Sure they will - the first time - but not when they - and the rest of the muslims that don't hold the "extremist" views they do - see what they have to lose. Not the people - the foundations of their theology.

C. Decide to push you until you give them that wonderful jihad recruiting tool.

See answer for B - shake their beliefs to the core. Can't have a Jihad if the foundation behind it is gone.